12 comments:

There is no point of view. I don't know how things work in Canada, but in the US marriage is a state issue and furthermore overturning the will of the voter amounts to tyrany and is not something we should want to do. If this were to happen in the parts of the south in our country it would set women and african-americans back 100 years.

@BenThere is a point of view. The only reason to deny gay marriage is homophobia. Even in a democracy there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority of a population believes something does not mean that it is not inherently unfair. This is why governments have a tendency to put in place laws, rules and regulations to protect vulnerable members of society.

Ben - It was our very own "Founding Fathers", or at least some them, (in spite of being slave owners, etc.) who recognized, in theory at least, that the weakest and most vulnerable of our society deserved and needed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority in a democracy.

This is not a new concept. You would learn this in Civics 101, if we bothered to teach it anymore. Too radical to teach beyond Washington chopping down a cherry tree (not true) and Lincoln living in a log cabin (his parents did, but he did not), than to actually teach our rights and responsibilities towards each other in our democracy. How many of us kids (old and young) know about those myths, and how many of us can name the rights contained in the First Amendment of the US Constitution (no peeking on wiki)? But I digress...

Also, the fundamental right of people to petition peacefully for the overturning or amendment of unjust laws, which Prop. 8 is. Just what do you suggest the anti-Prop. 8 movement do?

The Anti-Prop-8 movement should take their case directly to the people, use print media, hit the airwaves; radio and tv with a video like the one in this post. The lawyers, businesses, corporations and the Mormon Church should all butt-out.

Just because the majority of a population believes something does not mean that it is not inherently unfair. This is why governments have a tendency to put in place laws, rules and regulations to protect vulnerable members of society.

That's a circular argument. Rule of law can only stop temporary swings of popular opinion, and often not even that. Since the majority is the ultimate sovereign in a republic, you're saying that the majority implements laws to protect minorities against the majority.

If people could agree to keep politics out of adult relationships in the first place, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. Marriage laws that allow same-sex marriage and those that prohibit it are essentially the same law; the differences are mere regulatory details, like the fact that "fat free" foods must contain no more than 3 grams of fat per serving instead of no more than 2.5 grams. The problem is with the majority, whomever that happens to be at the time, using the power of the state to stick its nose into marriage at all.

I say, repeal all marriage law. Then the state wouldn't be sanctioning something homophobes find objectionable, homosexuals won't be having anything denied to them by the state, and government becomes smaller. Everybody wins! Well, except busybodies who want to force their opinion on everybody at gunpoint. Those people can just fuck off.

Dori - Thank you. I meant to write this in my first comment to Ben, regarding the key role of the Supreme Court. This is one of the most important reasons why the Supreme Court exists - to overturn unjust state and federal laws that discriminate. It is supposed to be, anyways, the bulwark against the "tyranny of the majority", when it conflicts with rights enshrined in the Constitution, since its the role is to interpret that pesky document we have done so much to damage and dis these last 8 years. This is why Supreme Court justice picks in the US are so critical and fraught with long-term consequences for our ongoing experiment with democratic governance.

As weak a decision as Brown v. Board of Education was, it was a legal slap-down to the wishes of the voting majority in the south in particular, and the US in general. I am sure, Ben, you would not argue that the tyranny of the majority should have prevailed in that decision, just because most voters wanted to continue state-sanctioned segregation in the public schools.

No oppression olympics here; just a relevant legal analogy, in the sense that opponents of Prop. 8 have the inalienable RIGHT to go to court to get it overturned, just as the petitioners in Brown v. Board did.

Finally, we have to remember that for all the public education and direct action undertaken by our great social movements, there were simultaneous battles, many quietly fought, to overturn unjust laws and practices. To NOT use the court system, as one of many tactics to get Prop. 8 overturned, would make no sense. Prop. 8 is an attempt at de jure discrimination, so it HAS to go the up the chain of courts to change it. Your tactics, while necessary and good, are not enough.

Intense Debate Comments

About Me

I am the mother of two darling little boys that fill my life with hope. They have inspired me to help raise awareness of the issues that plague this little blue planet.
If you are looking for a blog that is all about how wonderful and rosy this world is, turn right because this space will not be for you. I am a committed humanist. I believe in the value of people over commodities. I believe in the human right to food, clothing, shelter, and education. I am pacifist, anti-racist, WOC. My truth may not be your truth, but I intend to speak it nonetheless.
Please feel free to direct questions or commentary womanistmusings@gmail.com